NORTH NIBLEY PARISH COUNCIL

2014


AN ORDINARY MEETING OF NORTH NIBLEY PARISH COUNCIL WAS HELD ON MONDAY 14 JULY, IN THE VILLAGE HALL, NORTH NIBLEY AT 7.30PM.

Present: Mr D Purnell (Chairman).

Mr K Brown; Mrs J Burton; Mr S Hale; Mr D Palmer & Mr L Smitherman.

District Councillors: District Councillors Mrs J Cordwell; Mrs L Reeves; & Mr P Smith.

County Councillor: Dr J Cordwell.

The Clerk: Mr R Symons.

There were twenty members of the public present for part of the Meeting.

The Chairman opened the Parish Council Meeting.

  1. The Chairman invited apologies. The Council received and accepted an apology from Mr K Larkin. County Councillor Dr. Cordwell had notified the Clerk that due to attendance at other meetings, he would arrive late.

  2. Declaration of Interests. The Chairman invited members to declare any Interests relating to this Meeting. There were none

  3. The Council approved and signed the Minutes of the Parish Annual Council Meeting held on 2 June 2014, as a true record. The Minutes of the June Ordinary Meeting of the Council had previously been distributed to all members and displayed on the public notice boards and the website. All members agreed the Minutes should be signed, as a true and accurate record. The Minutes were duly signed by the Chairman.


  1. The Council noted matters arising from the Minutes, not covered by agenda items. The Clerk referred to his Update Note, which had been issued prior to the Meeting. He advised that:

  1. The Council received and discussed the following applications for Planning Permission:

Following discussion by the Council the Chairman closed the Meeting and invited members of the public to address the Council. Several members of the public raised objections to the Planning Application and presented the Council with information and photographs in support. Those comments included: the impact upon the AONB and views from viewpoints in the area; archaeological issues affecting this area; the deficiencies in the ecological report; unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of the proposed solar farm; issues relating to the visual impact of the associated buildings; loss of agricultural land for 30 years; and highways matters not taken into account in the application.


The Council was advised that visitors to the Tyndale Steam Rally had been invited to provide their comments on the planning application. It was suggested that the most effective way for members of the public to object was by sending their comments to Stroud DC planning, using the website. It was also pointed out that as the application was likely to be “called in” for decision by the Development Control Committee of the District Council, members of the public could lobby members of that Committee in advance of them deciding upon the application.

Having listened to the public’s comments the Chairman re-opened the Meeting for the Council to reach a decision.


The Council discussed the application and unanimously agreed to Object on the following grounds:


(1). In the view of the Parish Council this proposal clearly is not in accordance with Stroud Local Plan Policy NE8 as it is a development within or affecting the setting of the AONB and evidently does not meet the Policy criteria of:

(a) The nature, siting and scale are sympathetic to the landscape; and

(b) The design and materials complement the character of the area


The Council also referred to Stroud Local Plan Emerging Policy ES2.


The Council also referred to Stroud Local Plan Emerging Policy ES7.


(2). The proposal also fails to meet National Planning guidelines. Namely the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). (NPPF at paragraph 17), recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;

The NPPF at paragraph 109 states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.


(3). The application also ignores the recently issued Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), which at paragraph ID 5- 007 indicates that local topography is an important factor in assessing whether large scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on the landscape. In the opinion of the Council this is large scale solar farm and is one to which this specific piece of Guidance applies.

Additionally, the PPG at paragraph ID 5-010 says that “Renewable energy developments should be acceptable for their proposed location”; and indicates at paragraph ID 5-008 that distance away from a development is just one consideration.

The PPG at paragraph: 013 asks “what are the particular planning considerations that relate to large scale ground-mounted solar photovoltaic Farms?” In the Council’s opinion the land is not as stated by the applicant as “poor quality agricultural land”; but in fact Grade 3 agricultural land. The Council concluded that this development would result in the loss of Grade 3 agricultural land for 30 years. There was no evidence that the applicant has considered alternative “brownfield sites” of which there are many in the Stroud District.

(4). In his oral statement to the House of Commons (29 January 2014) the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, stated the “The policies in the national planning policy framework are clear that there is no excuse for putting solar farms in the wrong places. The framework is clear that applications for renewable energy development, such as solar farms, should be approved only if the impact including the impact on the landscape – the visual and the cumulative impact – is or can be made acceptable. That is a very high test.” It is the Council’s opinion that the applicant has also failed this particular test.


(5). The Application is also deficient in the Archaeological assessment within the Heritage Statement.

(6). The Council note that the Ecological Survey was carried out at November time.

North Nibley Parish Council strongly Objected to this Planning Application and requested that the Application be called in for decision by the Development Control Committee.

The Council’s Full Objection is at Annex A, below.


The Chairman closed the Meeting and invited members of the public to address the Council. Several members of the public raised objections to the Planning Application and presented the Council with information in support.


Having listened to the public’s comments the Chairman re-opened the Meeting.


Following discussion The Council unanimously agreed to Object on the following grounds:


  1. This site is within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) area. As such any development on this site would be contrary to Stroud District Local Plan Policy NE8. The policy clearly states that “within the Cotswolds AONB, priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape over other considerations, whilst having regard to the economic and social well-being of the AONB. Development will only be permitted if all the following criteria are met:

  1. The nature, siting and scale are sympathetic to the landscape; and

  2. The design and materials complement the character of the area.

  3. Important landscape features and trees are retained and appropriate landscaping measures are undertaken”.

The Council are of the opinion that criteria 1 & 2 above are not met by this application.


The site is remote from the village settlement limits of North Nibley in an area of countryside located within the AONB and where under the terms of Policy ES7 (Stroud District Emerging policies) a high degree of protection is afforded to the landscape in such areas.


  1. The site lies outside the Village Settlement Boundary of North Nibley and as such any development would be contrary to Stroud District Local Plan Policy HN10. The Policy clearly states “outside the defined settlement boundaries residential development will not be permitted unless it is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry”.

From the information provided the Council consider that it is clear that no such exception can be applied to this application.


  1. Core Policy CP15 (Stroud District Emerging policies) reinforces 2 above and does not support development outside of settlement development limits both to protect the character and appearance of the countryside and to ensure development takes place in the most accessible and sustainable locations.


  1. The National Planning Policy Framework also seeks to protect areas designated as AONB. Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework emphasises that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty” and “that great weight should be given to conserving their qualities”.

In the Council’s opinion this proposal would significantly detract from the undeveloped character and appearance of this area and thus the traditional landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, contrary to Paragraph 115.


  1. Previous Stroud District Local Plan Policy HN18, which related to the establishment of Gypsy Sites, did not permit the establishment of gypsy sites within the AONB. Whilst that policy is not a saved policy it is nevertheless clear from Policy CP10 (Stroud District Emerging policies) the range of criteria which should be used when assessing proposals for gypsy sites. This policy sets out a requirement for a five year land supply of sites; but has a first preference to include pitches within the boundaries of existing suitable sites. This is not an existing site.


  1. Over many years there have been several unsuccessful attempts to build on this site. Those applications have been refused for sound planning & road safety reasons.

The site itself is very near a dangerous road junction and in an area where the national speed restriction applies. The road is very busy as it is a major access road for parents dropping off children at the village school. It is also a shortcut from Wotton under Edge - North Nibley to the A38 and as such used by large numbers of vehicles of all sizes throughout the day.

Over time there have been many accidents and near misses on the road outside of this piece of land. The prospect of vehicles towing caravans emerging onto this road at this spot, needs to be very carefully considered before any planning permission is granted. Before planning permission is given, the Council suggest that Highways advice be sought on this particular matter.


  1. Finally it is noted that the applicants are already living in “Stroud in Bricks & Mortar accommodation”. (Design & Access Statement).



Following discussion the Council agreed to make the following comments:

(1). It was noted that there were no dimensions given on the plans for the proposed building.

(2). The proposed building is on land adjoining a Grade 2 Listed Building (Burrows Court) and as such will detract from the views from that building which is used by tourists to the area. As such this could have an adverse effect upon that local business.

(3). The access to the premises is already to a very busy minor road. This is of concern to the Council.

(4). It is unclear what specific purpose the building is being provided for, given that the applicant lives in Scotland and the registered landowner on the Application Form owns the adjoining land known as Burrows Court Farm.

(5). The Council recommend that any planning permission granted should be for the personal use of the applicant and family; and not used for any business purpose.


Building Consent. Take down and rebuild left hand and central chimney stacks. Render repairs to external walls. New drainage to front of building to alleviate flooding issues. Reinstatement of stonework to right hand staircase. Rebuild sections of boundary walls. Redecoration of property.


Following discussion the Council agreed to make No Comments.


At this point in the Meeting all but one member of the public left the Meeting.

  1. The Council noted that Planning Consent has been granted in respect of the following application:



  1. The Chairman closed the Meeting for Public Discussion and Questions. The remaining member of the public brought to the Council’s attention her concerns about the possible failure by the applicants to meet the terms of an earlier Planning Decision (S.04/2008/FUL) made on Burrows Court Farm. It was noted that conditions placed on the Permission to construct outdoor manages and a portacabin office and extension of track was made conditional upon the applicant limiting the number of competitions and events to fifty in a calendar year; and no more than two competitions or events per week. The member of the public produced a calendar of dates which showed that to the end of November 2014 77 such competitions/events were arranged and that in some weeks more than 2 events had taken place. She was particularly concerned about the effect that large horse boxes, driving through the narrow roads, were having on local traffic and the impact on neighbours to the site. The Chairman thanked the member of public and re-opened the Meeting. The Council, following discussion, agreed that the Clerk should write to Stroud planning authority to bring these matters to their attention.


  1. The Council received a written District Council Report from District Councillor Mrs Reeves. (See filed aside). Following discussion the Chairman thanked Cllr. Mrs Reeves for her Report.



  1. In his absence the Council received a written County Council Report from County Councillor Dr J Cordwell. (See filed aside). Dr Cordwell arrived later, following his attendance at other parish council meetings in the area.


  1. The Chairman invited Councillors to report on Committees and Meetings they had attended.



  1. The Council received from the Clerk, further information on progress on Housing Needs Survey & Affordable Housing for the Parish.

The Clerk reported that he had received a draft Housing Needs Survey Questionnaire and supporting letter, from GRCC. He had circulated this to the Council to invite their comments. The Clerk issued a draft timetable for the Survey (see attached) and set a date of 28 July to receive their comments. He would bring a final draft to the Council Meeting on Monday 4 August. The Survey would be issued with the October Edition of “On The Edge”.

The Council agreed to fund the cost of the Survey, estimated at £140.00.

The Clerk also provided Councillors with a note on what he had learnt from his visits to four Affordable Housing sites in the County. (See attached). Because of time limitations the Clerk agreed to defer further discussion and include this matter on the August Agenda.



  1. Parish Council Finances.

  1. The Council discussed and approved new Parish Council Financial Regulations. The Clerk was tasked with carrying out the changes to the draft and bringing a copy to the August Meeting for sign-off by the Chairman.

  2. The Council approved the Invoices and drew up cheques for following items contained on the enclosed Schedule of Payments.

  1. The Council noted that the Council’s Annual Return for 2013/14 had been successfully audited by Grant Thornton, without comment.



  1. To receive and approve verbal Cemetery and Closed Churchyard Reports.

  1. The Council received and approved a request for an inscription in respect of the late Mr JT Turner.

  2. The Council received and considered a written request from St Martin’s PCC. Following discussion the Council agreed to take over the responsibility for grass cutting on the left hand side of the Churchyard after the next major cut in September 2014. The Clerk explained that this would mean engaging a contractor to take on this work from April 2015. The volunteers would continue to take care of the right hand side of the churchyard.

Following discussion the Council agreed the request and asked the Clerk to inform the PCC.



The Clerk advised the Council that he had been approached with a suggestion that attention was needed to the weeds and ivy growing on the walls of the churchyard. It was suggested that the Council needed to look at these and other matters relating to the churchyard and agreed that for the September Meeting the Council would meet at 7.00 pm at the Churchyard, before continuing the meeting at the Village Hall.

  1. To receive for information details of Correspondence received.

A List (see aside) was issued after the Meeting.



There being no further business the Meeting closed at 9.40 pm.


Councillors were reminded that the next Meeting of the Parish Council will be held in the Village Hall on Monday 4 August 2014 at 7.30 pm.




Annex A. Comments from North Nibley Parish Council.


S.14/1336/FUL. “Continued use of land for agricultural purposes and the installation of up to 18 MW of solar photovoltaic panels and ancillary works”.

Manor Farm, Upper Wick, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 6DE.


The Council met on Monday 14 July 2014 and discussed this application. The Council unanimously agreed to Object on the following grounds:


1. In the view of the Parish Council this proposal clearly is not in accordance with Stroud Local Plan Policy NE8 as it is a development within or affecting the setting of the AONB and evidently does not meet the Policy criteria of:

(a) The nature, siting and scale are sympathetic to the landscape; and

(b) The design and materials complement the character of the area


The Policy also states that “major development will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated to be in the national interest and that there is a lack of alternative sites.” The Council argues that, this is clearly a major development and that the applicant has neither demonstrated that it is in the national interest; nor that alternative sites, have been considered.


The Council also refers to Stroud Local Plan Emerging Policy ES2.Within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or in locations where proposals would affect the setting of the AONB, applicants for the development of renewable energy schemes and associated infrastructure will need to demonstrate that the public or national interest outweighs the protection afforded to the AONB.”


The Council also refers to Stroud Local Plan Emerging Policy ES7. “Within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or on land that may affect its setting, priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the natural and scenic beauty of the landscape whilst taking account of the biodiversity interest and the historic and cultural heritage. Major development will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated to be in the national interest and that there is a lack of alternative sustainable development sites.”

The proposed development is on land which adjoins the Cotswold AONB and there would be a significant visual impact from many parts of the AONB throughout the Parish, including Nibley Knoll and Stinchcombe Hill and the Listed Stancombe House Estate (Grade 1 listed) and beyond.

2. This proposal also fails to meet National Planning guidelines. Namely the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF at paragraph 17 recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; contributing to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. It also encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in the NPPF.

The NPPF at paragraph 109 states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

The Council is of the view that this proposal has a major adverse effect on the landscape character in the setting of the Cotswolds AONB and a major adverse effect on visual amenity for users of the Cotswold Way National Trail and visitors to the Drakestone Point viewpoint in the Cotswolds AONB as well as users of Nibley Knoll and visitors to Tyndale Monument. It is therefore contrary to Policy ES2 of the Local Plan and paragraphs 17 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

These are areas visited for their beauty and recreation by many people each year.

This development would also have a similar negative impact to many local residents and users of the roads, lanes and footpaths in and around the Parish of North Nibley.

3. This application also ignores the recently issued Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), which at paragraph ID 5- 007 indicates that local topography is an important factor in assessing whether large scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on the landscape and which recognises that impact can be as great in predominately flat landscapes as in hilly or mountainous areas. At paragraph ID 5-013 the PPG recognises that “the deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes.” In the opinion of the Council this is large scale solar farm and is one to which this specific piece of Guidance applies.

Additionally, the PPG at paragraph ID 5-010 says that “Renewable energy developments should be acceptable for their proposed location”, and indicates at paragraph ID 5-008 that distance away from a development is just one consideration, stating that "distance plays a part, but so does the local context including factors such as topography, the local environment and near-by land uses.”


In the Council’s opinion it is evident that due to the topography, this location is overlooked by large areas of the AONB and the adjoining land and that the proposed development would have a major detrimental impact upon the views from many parts. The Council challenge the applicant’s assessment, which is dismissive of the impact upon users of Stinchcombe Hill and the Drakestone viewpoint. In addition users of Nibley Knoll and visitors to Tyndale Monument would similarly experience “a negative impact” of their views of the landscape towards the proposed development.

The PPG at paragraph: 013 asks “what are the particular planning considerations that relate to large scale ground-mounted solar photovoltaic Farms?” It goes on to recognise that the deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. However, the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively.

The Parish Council note that “particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:

In the Council’s opinion the land is not as stated by the applicant as “poor quality agricultural land” (Design & Access statement para. 7.2); but in fact Grade 3 agricultural land (as stated in Design & Access statement Para 2.2). From local knowledge it is known that the land on which this proposed development will be located is agricultural land which has been in continuous use for dairy farming and more recently arable farming, until this time.

(Defra describe Grade 3 – as “good to moderate quality agricultural land. Land with moderate limitations, which affect the choice of crops, timing and type of cultivation, harvesting or the level of yield. Where more demanding crops are grown yields are generally lower or more variable than on land in Grades 1 and 2.” ( Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales)).

This development would result in the loss of Grade 3 agricultural land for 30 years. There is no evidence that the applicant has considered alternative “brownfield sites” of which there are many in the Stroud District. Instead the applicant prefers to turn this agricultural area into an industrial site within the rural countryside, detracting from the distinctive topography of the site and its surroundings.

The Council view the applicant’s claim that the land will continue to be used for agricultural purposes, as unproven.


4. In his oral statement to the House of Commons (29 January 2014) the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, stated the “The policies in the national planning policy framework are clear that there is no excuse for putting solar farms in the wrong places. The framework is clear that applications for renewable energy development, such as solar farms, should be approved only if the impact including the impact on the landscape – the visual and the cumulative impact – is or can be made acceptable. That is a very high test.”


It is the Council’s opinion that the applicant has also failed this particular test.


5. The Application is also deficient in that it has no Archaeological assessment. The NPPF (Annex Two Glossary) defines Archaeological interest as “there will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them”.

The adjoining area of Nibley Green is the site of an ancient battle between William, Lord Berkeley, and Thomas, Lord Lisle with a combined force of more than 1,000 men.  This was the last battle between private armies fought on English soil and took place in 1469/70.  Furthermore it is believed that the fields in this area are of archaeological interest due to that Battle.

There is also an important Roman road known to have passed through this site. In addition there could be remains of a Roman settlement in this area. It was known that Roman remains were discovered during the construction of the nearby M5 Motorway.

6. The Council note that the Ecological Survey was carried out at November time. This is, of course, a time when many animals hibernate and such a Survey is unlikely to accurately reflect upon the ecology of the area during the Spring, Summer & Autumn.

North Nibley Parish Council strongly Object to this Planning Application and request that the Application is called in for decision by the Development Control Committee.

24